OBJECTIVES: The use of an anti-microbial mouthwash results not only in a reduction of the number of viable cells in dental plaque but potentially also in a shift in the oral microbiome. DNA-based techniques may be appropriate to monitor these shifts, but these techniques amplify DNA from both dead and living cells. Propidium monoazide (PMA) has been used to overcome this problem, by preventing the amplification of DNA from membrane-damaged cells. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of PMA when measuring compositional shifts in clinical samples after mouthwash use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On two consecutive days, baseline samples from buccal surfaces, tongue, and saliva were obtained from six volunteers, after which they used a mouthwash (Meridol, GABA, Switzerland) twice daily for 14 days. Subsequently similar samples were obtained on two consecutive days. The microbial composition of the samples, with or without ex vivo PMA treatment, was assessed with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. RESULTS: Data showed a clear effect of mouthwash usage on the tongue and saliva samples. PMA treatment enhanced the observed differences only for the saliva samples. Mouthwash treatments did not affect the composition of the plaque samples irrespective of the use of PMA. CONCLUSION: The necessity to use a PMA treatment to block the DNA from dead cells in clinical studies aimed at measuring compositional shifts after the use of a mouthwash is limited to salivary samples. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Measuring shifts in the oral microbiome could be hampered by the presence of DNA from dead cells.
OBJECTIVES: The use of an anti-microbial mouthwash results not only in a reduction of the number of viable cells in dental plaque but potentially also in a shift in the oral microbiome. DNA-based techniques may be appropriate to monitor these shifts, but these techniques amplify DNA from both dead and living cells. Propidium monoazide (PMA) has been used to overcome this problem, by preventing the amplification of DNA from membrane-damaged cells. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of PMA when measuring compositional shifts in clinical samples after mouthwash use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On two consecutive days, baseline samples from buccal surfaces, tongue, and saliva were obtained from six volunteers, after which they used a mouthwash (Meridol, GABA, Switzerland) twice daily for 14 days. Subsequently similar samples were obtained on two consecutive days. The microbial composition of the samples, with or without ex vivo PMA treatment, was assessed with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. RESULTS: Data showed a clear effect of mouthwash usage on the tongue and saliva samples. PMA treatment enhanced the observed differences only for the saliva samples. Mouthwash treatments did not affect the composition of the plaque samples irrespective of the use of PMA. CONCLUSION: The necessity to use a PMA treatment to block the DNA from dead cells in clinical studies aimed at measuring compositional shifts after the use of a mouthwash is limited to salivary samples. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Measuring shifts in the oral microbiome could be hampered by the presence of DNA from dead cells.
Authors: Andreas Nocker; Alberto Mazza; Luke Masson; Anne K Camper; Roland Brousseau Journal: J Microbiol Methods Date: 2008-12-07 Impact factor: 2.363
Authors: Peter Lingström; Egija Zaura; Haidar Hassan; Mark J Buijs; Pamie Hedelin; Jonathan Pratten; David Spratt; Maria Daglia; Aneta Karbowiak; Caterina Signoretto; Martijn Rosema; Fridus van der Weijden; Michael Wilson Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol Date: 2012-02-07
Authors: Linh Do Ngoc Nguyen; Pieter Deschaght; Sophie Merlin; Alexandre Loywick; Christophe Audebert; Sabine Van Daele; Eric Viscogliosi; Mario Vaneechoutte; Laurence Delhaes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria T Nelson; Christopher E Pope; Robyn L Marsh; Daniel J Wolter; Eli J Weiss; Kyle R Hager; Anh T Vo; Mitchell J Brittnacher; Matthew C Radey; Hillary S Hayden; Alexander Eng; Samuel I Miller; Elhanan Borenstein; Lucas R Hoffman Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Ya Wang; Yan Yan; Kelsey N Thompson; Sena Bae; Emma K Accorsi; Yancong Zhang; Jiaxian Shen; Hera Vlamakis; Erica M Hartmann; Curtis Huttenhower Journal: Microbiome Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 14.650
Authors: Egija Zaura; Vincent Y Pappalardo; Mark J Buijs; Catherine M C Volgenant; Bernd W Brandt Journal: Periodontol 2000 Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 7.589
Authors: Deborah A Williamson; Eric P F Chow; Erica L Plummer; Kate Maddaford; Gerald L Murray; Christopher K Fairley; Shivani Pasricha; Andre Mu; Catriona S Bradshaw Journal: Microbiol Spectr Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Andrew J Hoisington; Lisa A Brenner; Kerry A Kinney; Teodor T Postolache; Christopher A Lowry Journal: Microbiome Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 14.650
Authors: Clarisse A Marotz; Jon G Sanders; Cristal Zuniga; Livia S Zaramela; Rob Knight; Karsten Zengler Journal: Microbiome Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 14.650